You are on page 1of 18


Alice L. Conklin
University of Rochester

La proposition, avancée par Georges Balandier dans les années 1950, que ce que j’observe, en réalité, n’est pas un village kong ou une tribu fang, mais une situation coloniale, n’a d’une certaine manière pas encore fini d’exercer ses effets subversifs dans la discipline. Le rapport des ethnologues à la domination coloniale ou postcoloniale n’est pas de servilité, mais de dénégation. Tout se passe comme s’ils ne la voyaient pas et leur complicité “objective” se réduit généralement à laisser croire qu’elle pourrait n’être pas visible …1

Jean Bazin’s 1996 invocation of the enduring effects of Georges Balandier’s critical insights of the 1950s is a testimonial to not just how revolutionary, but also how persuasive these insights were and remain. It is common currency now, even among those of us who are not anthropologists, that first European travelers, then European scientists “invented” places like “Africa” that tell us more about themselves/ourselves than the reality they purported to describe. The particular “invention” of the twentieth century was anthropologists’ “discovery” of “pure cultures” untouched by history and especially by colonialism. Having found such peoples, anthropologists then devoted themselves to recording and preserving their “authentic” traditions before it was too late. Balandier’s precocious contribution to the field, in this context, was to take the colonial situation itself as his object of study as early as 1951 and to render visible the unequal power relations so discreetly evacuated by his more “complicit” professional colleagues.2 The above assessment offers a useful starting point for a discussion of Balandier’s place in modern French ethnology, because in correctly identifying the latter’s remarkable achievements Bazin nevertheless overemphasizes the
French Politics, Culture & Society, Vol. 20, No. 2, Summer 2002

they openly sought the imprimatur of empire and the opportunities it afforded them for the institutionalization of their science. ethnology in the 1920s and 1930s. They did not have to ask twice. moreover. and research devoted to the “social facts” of nonWestern cultures. as Véronique Dimier and . Conklin “invisibility” of the empire for French anthropologists generally. to consider more closely the many different institutions––including colonial ones––that supported the emergence of the discipline in the first half of the twentieth century. that every colonial interest could applaud in theory. the IE and the MH attempted to renovate anthropology in France by promoting the study of so-called primitive cultures in loco. and Lévy-Bruhl consciously sought colonial subsidies for their new courses. Rivet. rather than from armchairs in Paris. at the “Insti” and the “Troca. trope of “preservationist” anthropology as the “handmaiden” of colonialism. and my particular concern in this essay. publications. Second. while diverging at others. Both remind us that while the generation of anthropologists that mentored Balandier may have ignored colonialism when it came to writing about native cultures. Ethnology’s stated goal––making colonialism more efficient and more humane through better knowledge of their subjects––was one. Mauss. they claimed. What were these two factors? First was Balandier’s own colonial “situation” as a state-employed anthropologist detached to French West Africa in the highly politicized post-Brazzaville context. financially. Last but not least. if not devote itself to in practice. and in its choice of scientific objects. although no one would deny that the latter was present.30 Alice L. Such knowledge would surely improve colonial rule. was his earlier sociological training at the Institut d’ethnologie (IE) at the University of Paris and the Musée de l’homme (MH) at a moment when these two linked institutions were openly placing ethnological knowledge at the service of empire.” became colonial through and through. by helping administrators to understand their subjects. but now rather confining. and the desired subsidies soon materialized. Paul Rivet and Lucien Lévy-Bruhl.”5 Out of this tangled web of cross-cutting motivations. I would like to suggest in this essay. is a case in point. Historians of anthropology have increasingly shown that “colonial” and “academic” knowledge of non-Western cultures helped to constitute each other at specific moments in time. as Benoît de l’Estoile has pointed out. It did not spring ex nihilo from a brilliant mind. They baptized their new approach “ethnology” to distinguish it from the excessively physical anthropology that still dominated in France.4 Founded in the interwar years by Marcel Mauss. the French state after World War I was now eager to legitimate its right to colonies by mobilizing the prestige of science “for its own sake. At the same time. Recent scholarship on the history of the social sciences in Europe has gone beyond the once useful. his confrontation with “la situation coloniale” was critically framed by at least two imperial factors at the beginning of his career. at least institutionally.3 Balandier’s own work. Rather. In their bid to professionalize ethnologie. Anthropology in its new “ethnological” guise was an inexpensive science to fund.

This preoccupation in turn kept them (and at least some of their students) at a critical distance––literally and epistemologically––from empire’s most direct use and abuse of their science. and the Broca Laboratory at the École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE).6 Given this colonial imbrication of the IE and MH.. a brief review of the organization and status of the discipline of anthropology in France is helpful. there was still no university chair or program in the field. To grasp Mauss. ethnologie’s reliance on colonialism to institutionalize itself––prove Bazin’s larger point that anthropology was directly complicit in the empire’s many inequities? There are. French administrators in the colonies became increasingly scientific and ethnological. Its professional bases were the École d’Anthropologie. at least for the inter war period. There was also a marked divide between physical anthropologists interested in systems of racial classification and ethnographers concerned with humanity’s diverse cultures and more especially “primitive” and “exotic” ones. historically had enjoyed the most prestige in France and internationally despite deep disagreements within their ranks. devoted to les sciences religeuses. Rivet and Lévy-Bruhl’s scientific aspirations in the interwar years. and Lévy-Bruhl certainly mobilized imperial resources. and ethnographers documenting and analyzing civilizations beyond Europe––that appeared the more dynamic and more innovative. the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Muséum). although institutionally they still defined and therefore controlled what officially passed for anthropology in France. albeit also more marginal and (if possible) more fragmented. and in private associations. as well as at the École des Langues Orientales Vivantes and the more practically oriented École Coloniale. Balandier’s case suggests that we still have much to learn about colonial forms of knowledge. that Balandier was able to produce the kind of anticolonial sociology for which he is justly famous? Indeed. increasingly . of the empire but also outside of it. linguists. By 1900. The former.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 31 Gary Wilder have each shown in different ways. physical anthropologists in France were no longer at the cutting edge of scholarship. as they emerged on the margins of a scientizing empire and a professionalizing science. The most successful among them had found a niche in the erudite fifth section of the EPHE. As Emmanuelle Sibeud has shown.e. degrees of “complicity. the Institut de Paléontologie.7 In the 1920s. these were all teaching institutions that nevertheless did not confer the university degrees essential to careers in France in higher education. But does not this same phenomenon––i. Rivet. Was it not from his specific location. Rather it was France’s other learned community devoted to the science of man––those sociologists. an outgrowth of natural history. although there was a rich and variegated tradition of studying man in the many parallel schools that existed alongside the various facultés des lettres and facultés des sciences. of course. they did so in ways that reflected their particular professional aspirations first and foremost.” I will argue that while Mauss. Bazin’s suggestion that French anthropologists paid little attention to empire requires revising.

and cultural facts of “simple” societies. nous ne nous intéressons pas à cette science parce qu’il n’y a chez nous . font désormais partie intégrante de l’ensemble des faits que considèrent les disciplines les plus classiques. ni bons musées. he considered applying for the directorship of France’s long neglected MET. many of them were coming to the same conclusion. That same year. This multifaceted reforming impulse ultimately culminated in the two linked initiatives invoked above: first. more theoretically rigorous and more synthetic basis than that on offer by Broca’s disciples. in two articles surveying “ethnography in France and abroad. Nous n’avons ni enseignements. one that took into better account social. by the turn of the century. despite the latter’s superior status as a great “scientific power and colonial power. five years after his appointment to the EPHE. This was that the science of man needed to be placed on a new. In a 1913 letter to the minister of public education. Conklin sophisticated “amateur” ethnographers were also beginning to emerge from the ranks of the colonial administration. the Musée d’ethnographie du Trocadéro (MET).” 9 But. Mauss pointed out that the breakthrough effected by Durkheimian as well as recent Anglo-American and German sociology had depended on their innovative use of ethnographic documents. Mauss was certainly one of the earliest and most articulate advocates of a renovated anthropology in France. Although these different groups did not initially work in concert. linguistic. and second. La cause et aussi la conséquence de la stagnation de l’ethnographie en France est l’absence ou l’insuffisance des institutions qui pourraient s’en occuper. the turn of these same ethnologists to the colonies for funds and legitimation. “Les faits ethnographiques. Yet the concerns that motivated Mauss in 1907 resurfaced six years later. In the end he did not secure this position.32 Alice L. ni offices de recherches ethnographiques parce que nous ne nous intéressons pas à l’ethnographie. he lamented. Unlike other maverick scholars who shared his concerns but did not move in the same elite circles. Finally a number of ethnographic societies were founded or refounded in the prewar years––further evidence of a flourishing interest in “traditional” societies beyond France’s borders. In 1907.” he concluded bitterly that even Switzerland and Sweden had done better than France in this domain. more culturally oriented science of man.”10 He then added. France was doing nothing to study such facts or make them known. he was also sufficiently well connected to make his views heard. the best known of whom was the Africanist Maurice Delafosse. both because they believed in the possibility of a humanitarian empire and because the scientific management of human resources overseas had become politically l’ordre du jour in France.8 It is as if Mauss sensed even then the important role that this museum could play and should play in the professionalization of a new. which together. would give ethnologists an institutional base that could eclipse if not supplant the École d’Anthropologie and redefine anthropology at the Muséum. inversement. Et.” he wrote. it was hoped. “empruntés à des sociétés inférieures. the creation of the IE and a dramatic overhaul of France’s existing ethnographic museum.

together approached the Muséum anthropologist Paul Rivet shortly after the war with their idea of forming an IE at the University of Paris to teach ethnography and publish research in the field.”12 A year earlier. whose explicit objective would be to organize. and activate ethnographic studies in France and particularly in the French colonies. geology and physical geography. with Rivet particularly responsible for organizing the content of its curriculum and its day-to-day operations.14 Rivet and Mauss had already been in touch before the war. Il lui faut des organes permanents. As an observational science like zoology. botany.”15 Although a medical doctor trained in Broca’s anthropometric methods. ethnography demanded three different orders of work: fieldwork. But what is striking about Mauss’s description of the state of ethnography in France in 1914 is the extent to which his recommendations were realized in the 1920s and 1930s––although not by Mauss alone.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 33 personne qui soit particulièrement intéressé à son succès. Rivet had written to Mauss in 1914 applauding his excellent article and hoping “that it would have some effect. A gifted administrator as well. il lui faut un matériel et un personnel. Mauss had actually drawn up a proposal for one piece of this larger institutional project. while there he began studying the material culture.11 Mauss––in what was clearly a bid to establish himself as a leader of this “missing” science in France––went on to outline what remained to be done if France wanted to rank on a par at the very least with London and Vienna. professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne. Une science ne vit pas que de beau langage. was not connected by birth or marriage––made him an especially valuable recruit to Mauss’s ethnographic cause. Yet it was thanks to Lévy-Bruhl’s political con- . museum or archival work. and teaching. by the 1920s he would soon become France’s most eminent Americanist. he found himself head of both the Société des Américanistes and the Institut International d’Anthropologie. fellow socialists and longstanding friends.13 Nothing came of this particular proposal as France mobilized for war. where knowledge produced was communicated to specialists and “even the public at large. his internationalist and socialist politics. encourage. I still do not have all the elements of the story. His organizational skills. studied. during which “documents” were collected. unlike Mauss and Lévy-Bruhl. and more especially the languages and migration patterns. Dispatched from the navy to the Muséum upon his return. from 1900 to 1905. Rivet had cut his anthropological teeth during a five-year mission in South America. des institutions durables qui la créent et l’entretiennent. of the peoples of Meso-America and became a passionate advocate of a more polyvalent approach to the science of man. as well as his ambition to succeed in the elite social world of the French intelligentsia––to which he. He envisaged the creation of a Bureau of Ethnography attached to the university.16 Mauss and Rivet would run the Institut together as co-secretary generals. his publication record. and published. It nevertheless appears that Mauss and Lévy-Bruhl. where objects were classified.

which was officially created on 1 August 1925.18 The colonial underpinning of the IE.17 The plan was modest enough not to offend: the Institute would offer a few courses of its own––mostly in descriptive ethnography––but would draw upon existing courses at the Muséum. By 1928. the University of Paris. directly implicated in the scientific work of the new Institute. by the late 1920s Rivet was a frontrunner for that position. given the colonial subsidy. he had been particularly scandalized by France’s backwardness on this front as well. Finally and most importantly. Museums had been critical to Mauss’s conceptualization of how to transform ethnography into a proper science since at least the turn of the century. Conklin tacts and his “in” at the Sorbonne that the IE saw the light of day in 1925. who passed it on to Édouard Daladier. referred the project to Gaston Doumergue.34 Alice L. colonial minister and friend of Lévy-Bruhl. the École Coloniale and École des Langues Orientales. principal funding would come from the colonies. the EPHE. Students already registered at the University could enroll. The Sorbonne assembly passed Lévy-Bruhl’s proposal but stipulated that the IE should not cost the University anything. a new series of monographs entitled Travaux et mémoires. minister of public instruction. which also became avowedly colonial in these years. École Coloniale students and colonial functionaries en congé should also be dispensed from paying fees and that competent colonial administrators should be allowed to teach there. the three men saw the opportunity to realize their objectives. The new program would be housed at the Institut de Géographie. quickly became linked to that of France’s ethnographic museum. dedicated to bringing into print the “ethnographic” facts which French anthropologists were now going to collect. Sébastien Charléty. Institute students could prepare a diploma (later these became certificates for licenses in either sciences or lettres). Lévy-Bruhl introduced the idea and a “projet de règlement” for a new “ethnographic institute” to the Sorbonne’s Conseil des Professeurs (of which he was a member) in December 1924. It was Daladier who approved the colonial subsidy that in the end would prove the linchpin of the institution. Paul Rivet was in the ideal position to bring the MET into the orb of the new ethnology. He also insisted that. Rector of the University. giving its acolytes a “real” laboratory in which to work and an institution that could hire their students. By tradition the director of the MET had held the chair in French anthropology at the Muséum. Rivet and Mauss . and students at the EPHE and the École des Chartes would be exempt from matriculation fees. The fate of the Institute. In 1913. in turn. was thus in place from the outset. however. It would also inaugurate an important publication. When he was elected Professor in 1928. When the Cartel des Gauches came to power. Rivet made it a condition of his acceptance that the Musée d’ethnographie be formally attached to the Muséum and that he be allowed to hire both a sousdirecteur to help turn the museum around and a staff to run it. with the specific mandate to study France’s colonies. since he had been teaching and working at this institution since 1908.

announcing the creation of the IE. complete with classrooms. a little late for the World’s Fair that was held in Paris a year earlier. Rivet could still write Édouard Daladier.20 The renovated Musée d’ethnographie. display galleries. All Institute students were expected to spend time at the museum. Rivet was able to inaugurate a refurbished and renamed Musée de l’Homme. that his new museum was a “colonial museum” and request the presence of colonial troops at its inauguration. in his plea to the government for more funds. would continue the educational work of the Colonial Exposition closing that same year.19 With the help of both wealthy patrons and IE students sent on mission to conduct fieldwork and acquire artifacts. salle de cinéma. He also moved the Muséum’s physical anthropology collection to the new premises––for Rivet and Mauss accepted that ethnology as they were defining it required that man be classified racially as well as studied sociologically. then war minister. Rivet soon built up the museum’s library and collections. all three men who guided the IE and the MET-MH stated how important their work was to colonization. identifying the colonial vocation of the linked IE-museum nexus is easy: it was openly embraced and celebrated. which Rivet––with Mauss’s backing––always conceived as much a research facility as an institution for the popularization of science. and salle de lecture for its library. however. and on the other.22 As the above description implies. phonothèque.21 On the eve of the opening of the MH. is less straightforward than it might appear. he described it as a scientific institution that would “travailler au progrès de la science ethnologique. which also underwrote its budget especially in the early years of its transformation––a connection the MET did nothing to hide and like the IE considered one of its great strengths. another paragraph made a stronger pitch for the active role anthropologists should play overseas in France’s official imperial project: eth- . prehistoric as well as contemporary––were now contained in its four walls. Many doctoral students survived by working for the MH. Determining the exact nature of the colonial connection.” on the one hand. In 1938. Finally in 1937 and 1938 Rivet realized a longstanding ambition: the relocation of the old Trocadéro museum and IE together in a new building. In point of fact. helping to catalogue its collections and determining how they should be exhibited. so called because the necessary elements for learning about man in all his facets––cultural as well as racial.”23 If the latter clause seemed to leave it up to colonial bureaucrats to call––or not call––on anthropologists whose work they were underwriting. most of the objects in the museum came from the French colonies. That the museum would be “responsibly” scientific. In a well known article published by Lévy-Bruhl in 1926. Certainly. “mettre les résultats de cette science au service de notre politique indigène toutes les fois qu’on le lui demandera. Rivet left little doubt.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 35 now had yet another means of acquiring ethnographic facts and disseminating their new science more responsibly and more widely than had hitherto been the case. Rivet insisted in 1931. photothèque.

rather than according to the specific needs of more local (colonial) agendas. Nor did they lobby for positions for their students in the colonial administration. Colonial delegates were given representation only on the Institute’s administrative council. As. as a result.” Despite these claims. Mauss or Rivet taking any direct interest in colonial policy. At this meeting . all of them professional scientists attached to metropolitan institutions of higher learning.24 “L’IE a pour objet de coordonner. des cadres sociaux” of the “populations indigènes. the latter had five members. not on its Directors’ Committee.” The money would come from the empire. of course. de former des travailleurs pour ces études et de publier leurs travaux. the linguist Antoine Meillet. Conklin nologists were as important as doctors or engineers. which made the essential decisions. The former had 28 members. This academic vocation was further underscored by the makeup of the governing bodies of the Institute. d’organiser et de développer les études ethnologiques. en particulier celles qui se rapportent aux Colonies françaises.26 These included Mauss.”25 This description of the Institute’s raison d’être. however. Students. des religions. revealing. or perhaps more. Il pourra envoyer des missions aux colonies et exceptionnellement ailleurs. il pourra subventionner des publications aux colonies. and Maurice Delafosse. the central role of the colonies in facilitating the emergence of “études ethnologiques. Lévy-Bruhl and Rivet. Here is one clue that the IE founders viewed their enterprise as one principally dedicated to the production of new knowledge in keeping with the most rigorous scientific standards obtaining in France. dans la mesure de ses ressources. a better sense of how Mauss. held in November 1925. Given this ambiguity on the subject. with its prestigious Sorbonne imprint and its implied limited readership of fellow scholars. of whom ten were designated by the colonial governments or the colonial minister. that they might coordinate their teaching and research projects with the specific needs of administrators in the field. contained in the 1925 decree and which did not change throughout the interwar years. would mostly––although not exclusively––be sent to study peoples living under French rule. A final indication that the new ethnology would be cast primarily in the mode of “pure research” can be found in the minutes of the very first meeting of the Conseil d’administration. makes clear. a colonial governor who had virtually retired from service and was now teaching at the École des Langues Orientales. it is difficult to find Lévy-Bruhl.36 Alice L. since they could provide “une connaissance exacte et approfondie des langues. in the description quoted above is the pronounced “academic” orientation envisaged for this new “colonial” science: it was taken for granted that the bulk of the funds would be used to subsidize research with a view to publication in the metropole––in the new Travaux et mémoires series. Rivet and Lévy-Bruhl envisaged the relationship between colonialism and the scientific study of so-called primitive cultures can be gleaned from the organization of the Institute in its early years and the correspondence of Mauss and Rivet in particular. who held a chair at the Collège de France.

Le besoin le plus pressant. mais il faut qu’il soit stimulé par des objurgations venues de Paris et portant l’estampille officielle.000 francs promised from the beginning and routinely reconfirmed until the Depression forced a retrenchment––came from Indochina. as its right to send a delegate to the Conseil d’administration of the IE indicates. and Lévy-Bruhl very much saw a place for this kind of scholarship in the empire proper: “la conser vation des civilisations indigènes par l’organisation de musées aussi bien en France qu’aux colonies et d’enquêtes ethnologiques” and collaboration “avec toutes les organisations scientifiques déjà existantes [in the colonies]” by establishing “une liaison entre elles. the Orientalist Louis Finot. Rivet. c’est l’organisation des enquêtes ethnologiques. These are of particular interest because they both confirm the academic vocation of the new ethnology and reveal. En outre il faudrait qu’un de vous vint ici pour étudier le terrain et mettre sur pied une organisation pratique.30 Finot was particularly keen to have a museum founded in Indochina. He nevertheless spent more time discussing the particular research attributes of the IE. les traditions disparaissent avec rapidité. he impressed upon Mauss that it would be misguided for the Institute to give priority to les publications ethnologiques …. doctors. would not only publish erudite monographs in France dedicated to the cultures and languages of peoples in the colonies. and in 1925 Finot wrote that he was delighted that this plan was finally materializing. and they had remained friends ever since. that Mauss. It is significant in this context that the largest subsidy for the Institute––80. Mauss (who had been to Hanoi in 1902 at the school’s invitation for the meeting of the Société des Orientalistes)29 kept Finot well informed of his plans over the years regarding a Bureau d’ethnographie. It would also bring academic science itself to the colonies in the form of satellite institutions that the IE controlled and coordinated––museums and scientific organizations––in the continued absence of university departments of anthropology in France. Le gouvernement général et les gouvernements locaux pourraient faire beaucoup dans ce sens. somewhat surprisingly. This colony already had a well-developed tradition of colonial erudition in its École Française d’Extrême Orient (EFEO).”31 Indeed. Although Finot claimed to have had no hand in persuading the governor general to open his coffers. in short.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 37 Lévy-Bruhl noted. had been one of Mauss’s professors 25 years earlier at the EPHE.28 The director of the school until 1929.”27 The IE. les costumes. once again. la recherche des documentations et leur conservation … les vieilles coutumes. particularly since “nous sommes en ce moment encombrés par un projet Sarraut pour qui un musée d’ethnographie c’est un musée Grévin pour amuser les touristes avec pour directeur un brave garçon qui a besoin d’une prébende. that one of the Institute’s goals was to prepare men called to live in the colonies (administrators. a properly ethnological one. missionaries). officers. La chose est possible et elle en . two of which had not appeared in the organizing decree. Finot’s cooperation coupled with the local government’s largesse helped the EFEO and Indochina more generally to quickly become a favored vector of the IE and the MET.

it was Rivet who would follow up with a museum initiative there . the Muséum. Charles Le Coeur (a graduate of the École Normale Supérieure as well as of the IE and the EPHE) had been appointed maître de conférences at the École des Hautes Études Marocaines in Rabat. initially those of ethnologists known to them working in the colonies. such as the Rockefeller Foundation. le Résident Général des avis sur les services ethnographiques du Maroc. To subsidize missions d’enquêtes for their students.35 In addition to lobbying the authorities in Indochina.” He used the opportunity to conduct a four-month-long ethnographic mission and came back completely seduced by the country he had discovered and the fieldwork he had done.”37 Once again. in tandem with their revamping of the MET. Rivet wrote to the governors general of West Africa and Madagascar (whose subsidies to the IE were second and third largest respectively. Lévy-Bruhl et voyez ce qui est possible. 35. to “y faire cours et pour donner à M. which was placed under the authority of the EFEO. In 1932 Pasquier signed a decree creating the Hanoi ethnographic museum. Rivet was particularly active in the domain and was probably responsible with Finot for persuading the governor general of Indochina to begin planning––at least on paper––an ethnographic museum in Hanoi in 1929. serait en mesure de vous fournir d’ici un an les enquêteurs nécessaires.000 francs and 20. he also set to work creating a gallery devoted to the ethnography of Indochina at the MET. Bien entendu l’École Française serait là pour vous prêter son appui. and then to their students. Je vous ai dit que l’IE qui compte cette année 117 élèves dont un bon nombre se destine aux études asiatiques. they appealed successfully to other sources. at least from a financial point of view: almost all of their research budget went to publishing ethnographies. Conklin vaut la peine. and the Caisse de recherches scientifiques (later CNRS).34 Rivet traveled to Indochina later for the first time that same year to preside over the first meeting of the “Préhistoriens de l’Extrême Orient. in the end. and publications on the other. cette destruction s’accomplissant avec une rapidité effrayante. Mauss and Rivet also took seriously Finot’s project of founding museums overseas. the Commission des Missions.000 francs) about sending students there as well to found a properly scientific ethnographic museum in each colony.36 Mauss did his part too. Meanwhile Rivet devoted his course the next year at the Institute to the Moi and Muong peoples. Yet even as they turned to these traditional forms of establishing academic legitimacy. make a choice between “fieldwork” and conservation on the one hand. There one of his best students. Examinez cela avec M.38 Alice L.32 The Institute did not.33 He met with Governor General Pierre Pasquier during the Colonial Exposition in 1931 and reminded him in a subsequent letter summarizing their conversation that: Nous nous sommes trouvés entièrement d’accord sur la nécessité urgente de recueillir l’ethnographie et le folklore d’Indochine avant qu’ils ne disparaissent. He bestirred himself in 1930 to visit Morocco.

to take on museum directorships.39 The impulse to found properly scientific ethnographic museums and institutes in the colonies further confirms the professionalizing ambition of interwar ethnology. and wished to preserve. MH and IE student Anatole Lewitsky. a key collaborator at the Musée.” Mauss wrote witheringly.38 By 1939. Georges-Henri Rivière. in correspondence with A. he referred to the possibility for Institute students of getting scholarships to carry out fieldwork from the Institut International pour l’Étude des Langues et des Civilisations Africaines. these combined institutions gave the most gifted students an outlet for publishing and the opportunity to pursue higher degrees that would allow them to enter academia––or. with whom Rivet was in regular contact. more realistically. Very quickly the heart of Institute teaching became Mauss’s “Instructions d’ethnographie descriptive. with no fewer than 21 “centres d’études ethnologiques” in the empire listed under them. drew up a diagram of the institutional organization of French anthropology. R. again to his student Charles Le Coeur. the distinction between “pure science”––the province of ethnologists––and “applied science”––the province of administrators––is manifest in two different letters. one would enroll there. There was little in the Institute’s curriculum. “… de faire … de l’ethnographie intensive. that addressed how a budding ethnologist might advise a colonial administration seeking to oversee rationally a process of modernization––or encourage students to think in terms of colonial careers. “Il s’agirait. yet another former IE student who was intent on founding a museum at Rabat. The IE and the MH figured at the center.41 More revealing still. At the same time. when French ethnologists were invited to introduce themselves through a display of posters at the World’s Fair in New York. to send museographical instructions to Lucien Cochain. were the preserve of the École Coloniale.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 39 as well. suivi de ce que l’on appelle dans cet institut dit scientifique et mi-moral et missionnaire.” He nevertheless recommended Le Coeur to apply and publish his practical conclusions separately. especially as they now began to open up in the colonies. The letter asked him for names of French anthropologists who might be interested in a seminar being organized on “racial and cultural contacts in all parts of the world. and presumably if one had any interest in colonial service. those courses. given the absence of teaching positions in the field. if they existed. Mauss discussed a recent letter he had gotten from a Ms.40 That Mauss himself saw. In one. at least as it was emanating from the metropole.” which devoted little time to the impact of colonialism upon indigenous societies and cultures. certainly.” Mauss wrote to Radcliffe-Brown as follows: . Rosenfels of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago. whose specific mandate was to document the impact of European cultures upon African ones in these years. One goal of the IE and Troca and their emerging colonial satellites seemed to be to get as many people as possible with either colonial connections or curiosity about “other” cultures to learn proper collecting and documenting strategies in the empire before it was too late. des conclusions pratiques. in 1931 he instructed his subordinate. Radcliffe-Brown.

Georges Hardy in particular sought close ties between the two institutions.40 Alice L. Throughout the interwar years Mauss and Rivet nevertheless remained tireless advocates of any student––whether enrolled in the colonial service or not––whose work met their high academic standards. a colonial administrator in AOF preparing a doctorate with Mauss in the 30s. this time between Bernard Maupoil. that it had taken the Dutch at least 30 years to compile a decent coutumier of 60 volumes. L’enregistrement de ces faits est évidemment un devoir pour nous qui permettra de mieux asseoir la politique présente et l’histoire future. to the fact that it now suited interwar colonial policymakers on the spot to think in terms of how to stabilize “traditional” societies. at no point does it appear that either Rivet or Mauss considered seriously what kinds of ethnographic knowledge might be most . prepared by 200 years of “bonne administration” in Indonesia. Maupoil wrote that “M. Rivet and Lévy-Bruhl were sufficiently open to Hardy’s overtures to make him a member of the Directors’ Council in 1930. Je ne sais pas encore de quoi il s’agit. This was due in part. But there were definitely two levels of scientific competence recognized among the students who came to IE courses––competence in collecting and describing objects and customs and competence for undertaking sociological analysis. and his mentor. moreover. Conklin Veuillez trouver ici ma réponse à Miss Rosenfels. de Coppet [the Popular Front governor general in West Africa] m’appelle à Dakar pour faire un travail sur les coutumes. I do not want in any way to suggest that Mauss was contemptuous of colonial administrators or automatically relegated them to junior partners in the work of collecting and analyzing social facts.” Mauss replied. This impression is confirmed in another exchange of letters. and apparently he did not feel that “racial and cultural contact” between European imperialists and local societies lent itself to this kind of in-depth analysis. Many colonial administrators acquired only the first.44 In his capacity as director of the École Coloniale. and they sought reinforcement from what the best science had to say on the subject. C’est d’autre part un sujet où peuvent s’exercer non seulement les indigènes dressés par vous mais aussi ceux de nos jeunes ethnographes qui ne sont pas tout à fait capables d’un travail sociologique approfondi. et d’un intérêt capital pour l’Administration. because the percentage of École Coloniale students enrolled in Institute courses kept going up. as I have argued elsewhere. Ne le leur dites pas. it may be that an increasing number of the best students were administrators. Over time.43 In citing these passages.45 Mauss. Je vous tiendrai au courant de cette activité pseudo-ethnographique. Yet despite this increasing “Colo” presence. La science comporte d’ailleurs des degrés et c’est plutôt les générations qui nous suivront qui seront jugés que nous. Ses études sont en effet importantes et de toute urgence. mais c’est bien ce que je pense. simply by virtue of the lack of time available to them to do research. in a rather pessimistic vein.42 “Un travail sociologique approfondi”: this is what Mauss hoped for from the best and brightest of the ethnologists that he was forming.

Was Rivet’s and Mauss’s attitude toward French colonialism largely an instrumentalist one. Rivet. with a far-flung network of contacts in the overseas territories and even the Colonial Ministry. “Practical conclusions” also had their place. the founding of ethnology fell under the rubric of the pursuit of “pure science. and Lévy-Bruhl. For Mauss. To insist on these points is not to deny French ethnologists’ complicity in colonialism. They were. perhaps. because to do so would have compromised the colonial monies and colonial sites so necessary for institutionalizing their new science? The answer is surely. ethnology in the late 1930s was implicated in both but the handmaiden of neither. one in which they neither asked themselves the hard questions about the empire nor considered the future interests of the colonized. yes.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 41 directly useful to colonial governance––or in the best interests of those subjected to French rule. They thus created institutions and museums in the empire proper that echoed comparable scientific establishments at home and encouraged the kind of sociological research that would produce scholarly monographs for like-minded professionals. too busy worrying about what was in the best professional interest of their fledgling science. Meanwhile an empire in quest of prestige had its own reasons in the interwar years for supporting an emergent academic science of man––particularly one that took “traditional” societies as its object of study. then. but the Institute was determined from the outset to produce more than local knowledge. on some level. Born at the margins of the academy and the empire. But it is to restore to view the historically specific colonial configuration of ethnology at its birth: that of an inside/outside science. yet rigorous research standards and an agenda that did not require (but could include) immediate and direct application of their findings to overseas administration.” which in turn required the distance from “real life” that only the ivory tower could provide. . Yet it is important to remember that they belonged to a generation that still believed that the citizen/scientist could and should keep his or her research and political commitments separate.

” Isis 76 (1985): 331-48. 1999). Gary Wilder.42 Alice L. . “Interpréter ou décrire: Notes critiques sur la connaissance anthropologique. discours et pratiques en France (1860-1940) (Paris: L’Harmattan. Williams. 415. Andrew Zimmerman. Jean Jamin. The Savage Within: The Social History of British Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Des savants pour l’Empire (Paris: Orstom.” Genèses 17 (1998): 140-63. Claude Blanckaert.” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 74 (September 1988): 17-35. 2001). Recent works that theorize the relationship between anthropology and colonialism in new ways are Gary Wilder. p. “Construction et enjeu d’un discours colonial scientifique sur l’administration coloniale comparée” (Thèse de doctorat.” Revue française de sociologie 23. Henrika Kuklick.D. 1996). ed. 1991). Filippo Zerilli. Le Musée d’ethnographie du Trocadéro (1878-1908): Anthropologie et muséologie en France (Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Benoît de l’Estoile. “The Development of French Anthropology. On the history of ethnography: Emmanuelle Sibeud. 1999).” in Bones. Donald Bender. “L’histoire de l’ethnologie est-elle une histoire comme les autres?” Revue de Synthèse 3-4 (1988): 469-83. 7. University of Chicago.. Nélia Dias. 2. “Greater France Between the Wars: Negritude. Georges Balandier. Claude Blanckaert. 1 (1982): 17-35. My summary draws from my own research as well as from the following. Elizabeth A. According to Balandier.” Revue de synthèse 34 (July-December 2000): 291-323. and Benoît de l’Estoile. Il Lato oscuro dell’ etnologia (Rome: CISU. 4. 1878-1930” (Thèse de doctorat. 1991). 1991). 2001). Balandier acknowledged his intellectual debt to Mauss in “La Situation Coloniale. “Durkheim et les débuts de l’ethnologie universitaire. “Science de l’homme et ‘domination rationnelle’: Savoir ethnologique et politique indigène en Afrique coloniale française. only an analysis that recognizes the inherent conflicts and tensions of social relations under colonialism and takes into account colonizer and colonized permits “cet approche concret et complet déjà recommandé par Marcel Mauss” (p. “On the Origins of French Ethnology. Gary Wilder. 5. Jean Bazin. I would also like to thank Emmanuelle Saada. “Le problème de la légitimité dans l’organisation historique de l’ethnologie française. Victor Karady. Dan Borus and Robb Westbrook for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Véronique Dimier. French Historical Studies). H. Jacques Revel and Nathan Wachtel (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf/Éditions de l’EHESS. Conklin Notes 1. “Anthropological Institutions in Nineteenth-Century France. “Colonial Ethnology and Political Rationality in French West Africa” (forthcoming. “La Situation Coloniale: Approche Théorique. Colonial Humanism. “L’anthropologue face au monde moderne: Malinowski et la rationalisation de l’anthropologie et de l’administration. 3. diss. Victor Karady..” in Une école pour les sciences sociales: De la VIe section à l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. EHESS.” Cahiers internationaux de sociologie 11 (1951): 44-79. 73). Worldly Provincialism: German Anthropology in the Age of Empire (Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press. Université de Grenoble. 1998). Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “La Construction des savoirs africanistes en France. forthcoming). and the Imperial Nation-State” (Ph. eds. Herrick Chapman.” The Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 2 (1965): 135-54. The history of the organization of French anthropology in the twentieth century is just beginning to be written. See also on this point Christophe Bonneuil. 6.” noting that it was the latter who traced the way for his own theoretical conceptualization of “la situation coloniale” in its totality. The archives of the Collège de France are cited with permission. Les Politiques de l’anthropologie. eds. 1999).. Glenn Penny and Matti Bunzl.

7 pages.d. on p. Schneider. “L’ethnographie en France et à l’étranger II. in addition to Zerilli. [1913].” Collège de France. Marcel Mauss. n. “L’ethnographie en France et à l’étranger I. I am currently at work on the history of the transformation of the MET into the MH. 820-21. pp. 15. 26 December 1925. Correspondance. Jean Jamin. “L’anthropologie physique en France et ses origines institutionnelles. Correspondance Paul Rivet. 1989). 5 March 1907. Marcel Mauss (Paris: Fayard. Archives du Musée MH (AMH). i-xiii and “Méthode des moyennes et notion de ‘série suffisante’ en anthropologie physique. p.” p. Jacques Hainard and Roland Kaehr (Neuchâtel: Musée d’ethnographie. 45-79. C. Marcel Fournier. 18. Mass.” Gradhiva 26 (1999): 109-28. Marcel Mauss. Institut d’ethnologie. “L’ethnographie … II.p.” preface to Mémoires d’anthropologie.. 3-4 (1989): 277-94. 213-43. Le Laboratoire d’anthropologie à l’École pratique des hautes études (Laboratoire Broca) (Paris: [n. 1983). Evolution Transformed: The Social Context of Scientific Debates Originating in the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris (1859-1902)” (Ph. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl à Paul Rivet.]. typescript. Modifications au projet de règlement. George W. 1990). Jean Jamin. 17. 1. “Rapport sur le projet de règlement de l’Institut d’ethnologie.: Harvard University Press.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16 (1980): 118-32. 9. on p. n. The Predicament of Culture (Cambridge. séance du 24 novembre 1924 and “Institut d’ethnologie. 1986). Projet de Statut. Harvard University. Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel. Collège de France.” Conseil de l’Université de Paris. Jacqueline Feldman. 1989). 355. Archives Marcel Mauss. Michael Hammond. Christine Laurière. centre: Histoires et usages. “Anthropology as a Weapon of Social Combat in Late Nineteenth-Century France. milieu. Archives du Rectorat de Paris (ARP). 1991). eds. Bodies and Behavior: Essays in Biological Anthropology. William H. see. Projet de création d’un Bureau ou Institut d’ethnologie. see also Fournier. diss. Institut d’ethnologie. Archives Marcel Mauss. 1983).” Revue de Paris (1913). pp. Marcel Mauss. carton 26. Gallois. n.” ARP. Marcel Mauss à Ministre de l’Instruction Publique. si je me souviens bien c’était à une réception Bd. Paul Rivet à Marcel Mauss. 1980). Collège de France. Il Lato oscuro. pp. by Paul Broca (Paris: Jean-Michel Place. 1 August 1925. vie et oeuvre.” in Moyenne. typescript. 14. Germain dans la maison des Américains …. Some aspects have been treated in the following works: James Clifford. eds. séance du 27 avril 1925. “L’Ethnographie mode d’emploi: De quelques rapports de l’ethnologie avec le malaise dans la civilisation. 12.” Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 1. “Institut d’ethnologie. “Races Specified. [1913].d. and Benjamin Matalon (Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS. and Jean Jamin. 1. 11. Gérard Lagneau. pp. 821. p.” Gradhiva 6 (1989): 23-34. On the history of physical anthropology: Claude Blanckaert. Quality and Quantity: The Quest for Biological Regeneration in Twentieth-Century France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archives Marcel Mauss. ed. 18-55. Archives Marcel Mauss. 19.” in Le Mal et la Douleur. 16. “Paul Rivet. 13. Denise Férembach. On Rivet’s life and work. pp. Stocking (Chicago: University of Wisconsin Press. “Le savant et le politique: Paul Rivet (1876-1958). 549. carton 26. 10 October 1913. Décret portant création à l’Université de Paris d’un Institut d’ethnologie. 10. “La . Mauss.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 43 8.D. “La première fois que je vous ai demandé votre concours. Collège de France. 2. “‘L’Anthropologie personnifiée’: Paul Broca et la biologie du genre humain. Arnold Van Gennep à Marcel Mauss. “Projet de création à l’Université d’Institut d’ethnographie. St. 1994).” 18 May 1925. Joy Harvey.” Conseil de l’Université de Paris. 2 pages.” Revue de Paris (1913).

and the resident general of Morocco. 391-476. “L’étude des civilisations matérielles: Ethnographie. AEF. each of the Governments General (Indochine. “L’Institut d’ethnologie de l’Université de Paris. the École Coloniale. 51-74. Science. Sciences. Jean Jamin. archéologie. 26. Madagascar).” The same argument is made in AMH. the minister of public education. temps retrouvé. the colonial minister. I have not yet found any of Lévy-Bruhl’s correspondence with either his students or colonial officials comparable to Mauss’s and Rivet’s. “Le laboratoire d’anthropologie du Muséum. “Le Musée d’ethnographie en 1930: l’Ethnologie comme science et comme politique. Paul Rivet. Conklin 20. Paul Rivet. “Au moment où l’Exposition coloniale va fermer ses portes. one member each designated by the EPHE (Fifth section). as well as the governor general of Algeria.” Bulletin du Muséum. il est indispensable qu’un organisme permanent décent en continue l’œuvre éducative. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl. textes et témoinages (Paris: Dunod. mission d’ethnographie Dakar-Djibouti 1931-1933. Paul Rivet and Georges-Henri Rivière. the École Française d’Extrême-Orient. Elise Dubuc.” Gradhiva 24 (1998): 64-96. 24. eds. histoire. Musée national des Arts Africains et Océaniens. Blanckaert. pp. AMH. the Collège de France. and the resident general of Tunisia designated a member as well.44 Alice L. pp. For published contemporary accounts of the transformation. Finally. AMH. the deans of the four facultés (Lettres. Paul Rivet à Édouard Daladier. Jean Jamin. see Alice Conklin. # 1905. Institut d’ethnologie. École des Langues Orientales Vivantes. Droit and Médecine). “La réorganisation du Musée d’ethnographie du Trocadéro. but the differences between the representations of colonial peoples in these two venues are as interesting as their similarities. “Ethnologie. 22. For a more detailed analysis of the colonial connections of the MET and MH. pp. “Annexe du décret du 1er aôut 1925. and Benoît de l’Estoile.” Outremer (1930): 138-49. 1986). 21. Sous-secrétaire d’État au Travail. Musée Municipal d’Angoulême: Trois partis pris muséologiques différents” (Mémoire de maîtrise. “Les objets ethnographiques sont-ils des choses perdues?” in Temps perdu.” Osiris 17 (2002): 255-90. 25. Président du Conseil. James Herbert. 2e série (January 1940): 38-52.” in La Science française (Paris: Larousse. Jacques Hainard and Roland Kaehr (Neuchâtel: Musée d’ethnographie. AOF.” Museum Anthropology 18. 2:5-12 and “L’ethnologie en France. 2 AM 1 A 2. pp. which would allow me to follow his subsequent involvement in the Institut d’ethnologie after its founding. d’autant plus que la plupart des collections qui y ont été réunies vont nous être transmises. Paul Lester and Georges-Henri Rivière. “Gods in the Machine at the Palais de Chaillot.” Revue d’ethnographie et des traditions populaires 23-24 (1925): 233-36. 1989). the Muséum. Paul Rivet à Maurice Foulon. . ARP. De l’Estoile argues that the Colonial Exposition of 1931 represented a critical step in the subsequent institutionalization of ethnology at the Musée de l’homme in 1937. Paul Rivet à M. “Civil Society. 5 May 1938.” Documents 3 (1929): 130-34. “Le futur antérieur du musée de l’homme. 1985). 2 AM 1 A 11.” Cahiers Ethnologiques 5 (1984): 1-179. the colonial minister would designate two delegates to represent the other governments. “Musée de l’Homme.” Nouvelles archives du Muséum d’histoire naturelle 12 (1935): 507-31. Certainly Rivet adopted many of the themes and display methods of the Exposition when setting up the Musée de l’homme. “‘Des races non pas inférieures mais différentes’: De l’Exposition Coloniale au Musée de l’homme. Règlement. Université de Paris. 1933). 24 October 1931.” in Les politiques de l’anthropologie. and Empire: The Foundation of Paris’ Museum of Man.” in La Muséologie selon Georges-Henri Rivière: cours de muséologie. ed. 2 (1994): 16-36. 2 AM 1 A 2. and Paul Rivet. Nathalie Duparc. # 2210 bis. 110-21. Carton 26.” The Conseil d’administration always included the following: the Recteur (Président). # 825. 5 December 1931. le Sénateur (sent to all senators). 23.

1999). 34. 2 AM 1 A 1. Collège de France. AMH. Tahiti. AMH. 41. 26 May 1932. 3 February 1925. l’Association des Amis du Vieux Hué. 42. In 1926-27. 30. la Société d’Histoire Naturelle de l’Afrique du Nord. 38. l’Institut Français d’Indianisme de Karikal. Mauss taught 30 lessons in descriptive ethnography. Indes. l’Institut d’Études Sahariennes. Marcel Mauss à Bernard Maupoil. when Delafosse died. Carton 25. le Musée de Bardo à Alger. # 1006. Archives Marcel Mauss. l’Institut Bouddhique de Pnom Penh.The New “Ethnology” and “La Situation Coloniale” in Interwar France 45 27. 2 AM 1 A 3. Section d’Ethnologie à L’École Française d’ExtrêmeOrient. Paul Rivet à Pierre Pasquier. 35. Institut d’Ethnololgie. 76. Archives Marcel Mauss. Bernard Maupoil à Marcel Mauss. l’Institut des Hautes Études Marocaines. 33. 3 December 1936. Collège de France. Institut d’ethnologie. 43. Paul Rivet à Gouverneur Général de l’AOF. Carton 26. 39. la Société d’Études Soudanaises.000 francs or less. Mauss taught 50 lessons. AMH. 11 December 1936. Madagascar. 32. la Société des Études Melanésiennes à Nouméa. la Société des Recherches Congolaises à Brazzaville. Correspondance. The typical subsidy was 10. la Société de Géographie d’Alger et de l’Afrique du Nord. Collège de France. and five in “Instructions d’Anthropologie” by Paul Rivet. 24 May 1932. Séance du Conseil d’administration. l’IFAN. # 1554. p.7. AMH. Paul Rivet à Gouverneur Général de l’Indochine. la Société d’Études Camerounaises. 30 June 1930. Archives Marcel Mauss.29 instituant une commission chargée d’établir un musée d’histoire naturelle et d’ethnographie …”. 23 March 1931. Lévy-Bruhl asked Finot to join the Conseil d’administration in November 1925. 31. AMH. Correspondance. Séance du Conseil d’administration. Syrie. Rivière. Nouvelle Calédonie. Correspondance. Archives Marcel Mauss. Institut Scientifique Chérifien au Maroc. Marcel Mauss à Charles Le Coeur. 2 AM 1 A 3. Collège de France. 36. “Vu l’arrêté du 8. la Société Historique Algérienne. L’École Française d’Extrême-Orient. ARP. 9 July 1931. arrêté créant un musée d’ethnographie en Indochine. la Société des Études Océaniennes à Papeete. Louis Finot à Marcel Mauss. # 1074. Marcel Mauss à Président (EPHE). Collège de France. Activité du Musée MH. 40. ou l’institution des marges (1898-1956): Essai d’histoire sociale et politique de la science coloniale (Paris: Harmattan. “J’espère que cela deviendra sérieux. Collège de France. Louis Finot à Marcel Mauss. Seventy pages of typed notes from Mauss’s course in 1929-1930 were taken by Y. Institut d’ethnologie. Papiers Anatole Lewitsky. Marcel Mauss à Radcliffe-Brown. l’Académie Malgache à Tananarive. Yvonne Oddon/1a. 2 AM 1 D 14/f. 14 October 1925. ARP. The following year. while three lessons were taught in “ethnography of Africa. Camille Guy also joined the latter in 1926. Pierre Singaravélou. AMH. l’Institut Français de Damas. 2 AP 2 A. Paul Rivet à Gouverneur Général de Madagascar.” . See AMH. and he became a member of the Conseil de direction in 1926. 27 March 1931. Georges-Henri Rivière à Lucien Cochain. 18 July 1932. 2 AP 5 D. Dites-lui bien de ma part que pour rédiger un coutumier de la valeur de l’adat du gouvernement néerlandais de l’Inde. rapports annuels for 1926 and 1927. 29. Archives du Rectorat. # 1100. while the number of lessons in other courses stayed the same. 27 May 1927. 28. Correspondance. Indochine. 25 November 1925. Oddon and T. il faudra 30 ans de travail et 60 vols …. The names of the institutions were: L’Université d’Alger. Archives Marcel Mauss. Archives Marcel Mauss. Correspondance Paul Rivet. 37. Indochine. 2 January 1935.” by Camille Guy.

45. 32 out of 114. The number of students from the École Coloniale among total students enrolled increased as follows: 1927-1928. 1997). rapports annuels. 1933-1934. A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa. ten out of 89. 28 out of 145. 1928-1929.46 Alice L. Institut d’ethnologie. ARP. 1931-1932. Conklin. . Alice L. two out of 67. Conklin 44. 61 out of 1959. 1895-1930 (Stanford: Stanford University Press. 19291930. Carton 26.